Does 'Legitimate Rape' Really Inhibit Pregnancy?

Aug 20, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Patch.com

Is it possible for a female body to react differently to forcible sexual assaults versus date rape? Are there different "kinds" of rape? Isn't "rape" rape? U.S. Rep.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 52 of52
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Aug 27, 2012
 
Yesterday, Paul Ryan admitted a new phrase —“stock word”— to the Rapepublican lexicon.

What is a “stock word?” Well, he didn’t actually define it since obfuscation is its intended purpose, just as with the term “misspoke,” whatever that means. It seems likely that both terms are used for the same purpose, to disavow through beclouding the ordinary and obvious meaning of completely unambiguous statements whenever become political liabilities.

Example: Paul Ryan, who with Todd Akin, coined the phrase “forceable rape,” said yesterday that the unpopular term was only a “stock word.” The implication is that there’s really no such thing as “forceable rape.” He was sure to reinforce that denial of ownership by repeating his current mantra that there is only one kind of rape, as in “rape is rape.”

Did Paul Ryan not really mean what he said? Had he misspoken? Not exactly. He had only been using stock words.

So now, do we know exactly what he means? Yes, of course. He obviously means that he would like to “unsay” what he had previously said and meant.

I would like to submit the word “unsay” to the Rapepublican lexicon for use when their embarrassed politicians wish to be honest in the way they disown their inconvenient statements.
Britbulldog

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Aug 28, 2012
 
But sometimes no means yes.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Aug 28, 2012
 
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure there are quite a few decent people who live in Texas. Unfortunately, the religionist kooks who seem to hate the fact that WOMEN have rights and exercise them outnumber the decent folks.
Yes, I am sure there is, but damn I feel sorry for them and wonder how they manage!:)
Kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Aug 28, 2012
 
Britbulldog wrote:
But sometimes no means yes.
Yes, but only to Rapepublicans, whose official position is that women get raped because they covertly volunteer their bodies to the rapist and may feign protest as part of their subtle seductive ploy.
rider

Gwinn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Aug 28, 2012
 
John Brown & Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_... - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
John Brown and Company of Clydebank was a pre-eminent Scottish marine engineering and shipbuilding firm, responsible for building many notable and ...

History - Ships built by John Brown ...- See also - ReferencesBrown Brothers Harriman & Co.- Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Broth... - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The original Brown Brothers bank was founded in Philadelphia in 1818 by the four sons of Alexander Brown and was called John A. Brown and Company. Edward Roderick Davies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edward Roderick Davies (1915–1992) was a self-made industrialist. Born in a
Welsh coal mining family, in 1929 Davies immigrated to the United States with his ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Roderick_... - 36k -
Controversially, Davies, who was known to call organized religion "hogwash" and "drudgery" was, 11 months after his death, baptized in accord with Mormon tradition (Mormonism being the religion of his children including his daughter Ann and son-in-law, republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney). Despite being an avowed atheist, his children met to perform the ritual. Prompting the free world to say, what? According to a report by the Daily Mail, "Little else is known about the specifics of the 'special family meeting' which resulted in Mr Davies' baptism, except that it took place in the famed Salt Lake Temple in Utah on September 13, 1993. Whether or not Mitt Romney was present is unknown, but it seems likely that his wife Ann certainly was."[7]
Kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Aug 28, 2012
 
rider wrote:
John Brown & Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_... - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
John Brown and Company of Clydebank was a pre-eminent Scottish marine engineering and shipbuilding firm, responsible for building many notable and ...
History - Ships built by John Brown ...- See also - ReferencesBrown Brothers Harriman & Co.- Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Broth... - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The original Brown Brothers bank was founded in Philadelphia in 1818 by the four sons of Alexander Brown and was called John A. Brown and Company. Edward Roderick Davies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edward Roderick Davies (1915–1992) was a self-made industrialist. Born in a
Welsh coal mining family, in 1929 Davies immigrated to the United States with his ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Roderick_... - 36k -
Controversially, Davies, who was known to call organized religion "hogwash" and "drudgery" was, 11 months after his death, baptized in accord with Mormon tradition (Mormonism being the religion of his children including his daughter Ann and son-in-law, republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney). Despite being an avowed atheist, his children met to perform the ritual. Prompting the free world to say, what? According to a report by the Daily Mail, "Little else is known about the specifics of the 'special family meeting' which resulted in Mr Davies' baptism, except that it took place in the famed Salt Lake Temple in Utah on September 13, 1993. Whether or not Mitt Romney was present is unknown, but it seems likely that his wife Ann certainly was."[7]
I only recently became “enlightened” about the Mormon practice of baptizing dead people when it was brought to my attention that they baptize people who are not only dead but also may have had no connection to the LDS sect during life. Apparently, families are often shocked and angry that they would do such a thing. I doubt that a devout Southern Baptist family would be delighted to have their deceased born-again child baptized by Mormons, even if the Mormons meant well, which raises the question: Why would they do that? Why don’t they leave the dead alone? Just curious.
rider

Gwinn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Aug 28, 2012
 
Kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
I only recently became “enlightened” about the Mormon practice of baptizing dead people when it was brought to my attention that they baptize people who are not only dead but also may have had no connection to the LDS sect during life. Apparently, families are often shocked and angry that they would do such a thing. I doubt that a devout Southern Baptist family would be delighted to have their deceased born-again child baptized by Mormons, even if the Mormons meant well, which raises the question: Why would they do that? Why don’t they leave the dead alone? Just curious.
They are so indoctrined they must feel that they are the only people that should make all decisions for all others.
rider

Gwinn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Aug 28, 2012
 
Much of the theology of Mormon baptism was established during the early Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. According to this theology, baptism must be by submersion for the remission of sins (meaning that through baptism, past sins are forgiven), and occurs after one has shown faith and repentance. Mormon baptism does not purport to remit any sins other than personal ones, as adherents do not believe in original sin. Mormon baptisms also occur only after an "age of accountability" which is defined as the age of eight years.[2] The theology thus rejects infant baptism.[3] According to the account in Joseph Smith—History 1:68,[4] the first Mormon baptisms occurred on May 15, 1829, when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery baptized each other in the Susquehanna River near Harmony, Pennsylvania shortly after receiving the Aaronic priesthood from John the Baptist.

In addition, Mormon theology requires that baptism may only be performed with one who has been called and ordained by God with priesthood authority.[5] Because the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement operate under a lay priesthood, children raised in a Mormon family are usually baptized by a father or close male friend or family member who has achieved the office of priest, which in Mormonism is conferred upon worthy male members at least 16 years old.[6]

Baptism is seen as symbolic both of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection[7] and is also symbolic of the baptized individual putting off of the natural or sinful man and becoming spiritually reborn as a disciple of Jesus.

Membership into a Latter Day Saint church is granted only by baptism whether or not a person has been raised in the Church. Most Latter Day Saint churches do not recognize baptisms of other faiths as valid because they believe baptisms must be performed under the church's unique authority. Thus, all who come into one of the Latter Day Saint faiths as converts are baptized, even if they have previously received baptism in another faith.
rider

Gwinn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Aug 28, 2012
 
Baptism for the dead, vicarious baptism or proxy baptism today commonly refers to the religious practice of baptizing a person on behalf of one who is dead—a living person receiving the ordinance on behalf of a deceased person.

Baptism for the dead is best known as a doctrine of the Latter Day Saint movement, where it has been practiced since 1840. It is currently practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), where it is performed only in dedicated temples, as well as in several (but not all) other current factions of the Latter-day Saint movement. Those who practice this rite view baptism as an indispensable requirement to enter the Kingdom of God, and thus practice Baptism for the Dead to give those who have died without ever having had the opportunity to receive baptism the opportunity to receive it by proxy. The LDS Church teaches that those who have died may choose to accept or reject the baptism done on their behalf.

The modern term itself is derived from a phrase "baptised for the dead" occuring twice in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:29), though the meaning of that phrase is an open question among scholars. Early heresiologists Tertullian (Against Marcion 10) and Chrysostom (Homilies 40) attributed the practice to the Marcionites, whom they identified as a heretical "gnostic" group.[1] Consequently the practice was forbidden by the Catholic Church, and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.
rider

Gwinn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Aug 28, 2012
 
The LDS Church teaches that performing baptisms for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered on behalf of those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his teachings during their mortal lives. It is taught that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive baptism and to thereby enter the Kingdom of God.

The LDS Church teaches that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. Baptism on behalf of a deceased individual is not binding if that individual chooses to reject it in the afterlife.[29][30]
Kuda

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Aug 28, 2012
 
rider wrote:
The LDS Church teaches that performing baptisms for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered on behalf of those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his teachings during their mortal lives. It is taught that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive baptism and to thereby enter the Kingdom of God.
The LDS Church teaches that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. Baptism on behalf of a deceased individual is not binding if that individual chooses to reject it in the afterlife.[29][30]
Thank you for taking time to offer such thorough information about LDS baptism belief and practice. As you explain, the intent of baptism after death is to offer a complimentary pass to heaven to souls otherwise unsaved. I can see how outsiders, Baptists or Catholics, may be offended by the assumption that baptism in their churches is invalid.I would also think they might view the practice as akin to kidnapping or similar abduction. At any rate, it’s another situation that calls out for diplomacy, or at least sensitivity.
rider

Gwinn, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Aug 28, 2012
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints performs vicarious baptisms for individuals regardless of their race, sex, creed, religion, or morality. Some members of the LDS Church have been baptized for both victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, contrary to Church policy.[41] Some Jewish Holocaust survivors and some Jewish organizations have objected to this practice.

The LDS Church has urged members to submit the names of only their own ancestors for ordinances, and to request permission of surviving family members of people who have died within the past 95 years.[42] Hundreds of thousands of improperly submitted names not adhering to this policy have been removed from the records of the church.[43] Latter-day Saint apostle Boyd K. Packer has stated the LDS Church is clear that it uses the public records it collects for temple ordinance work.[44]

Despite the guidelines, some members of the church have submitted the names of Holocaust victims, and prominent Nazis, such as Heinrich Himmler, for vicarious baptism without adequate permission. In December 2002, independent researcher Helen Radkey published a report showing that, following a 1995 promise from the church to remove Jewish Nazi victims from its International Genealogical Index, the church's database included the names of about 19,000 who had a 40 to 50 percent chance "to be Holocaust victims ... in Russia, Poland, France, and Austria."[45][46] Genealogist Bernard Kouchel conducted a search of the International Genealogical Index, and discovered that many well known Jews had been vicariously baptized, including Maimonides, Albert Einstein, and Irving Berlin, without family permission.[47][48]

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 52 of52
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••